Breitbart's Big Journalism rallies to Tom "literacy test" Tancredo's defense
February 12, 2010 10:35 am ET by Simon Maloy
Of the many objectionable things said at this past weekend's Tea Party Convention, former Rep. Tom Tancredo's call for "civics literacy tests before people can vote" was perhaps the most flagrantly offensive and, arguably, anti-American. The idea of a "civics literacy test" as a prerequisite for voting rights is not only illegal, it conjures up the still raw memories of Jim Crow segregation in the post-bellum South.
Over at Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism.com, though, Tancredo's comments were no big deal. They were so innocuous, in fact, that they attacked MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for denouncing Tancredo, calling her a "race-baiting demagogue."
BigJournalism.com contributor Izzy Lyman tried to explain why Tancredo's comments were OK:
Tancredo didn't say "literacy," and he wasn't talking about race. He said "civics literacy," which implies a basic understanding of U.S. government and history. Thanks to multiculturalism and unsecured borders, there are far too many people in this country who don't speak a word of English and will never bother to do so. Here is one reason why state campaigns to make English the official language of government business are so successful.
This is a distinction without a difference. Any sort of "literacy test" as an impediment to voting rights -- be it actual literacy or governmental literacy or historical literacy -- is illegal. In fact, literacy tests administered prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did test knowledge of civics and history. If, as Big Journalism suggests, that's the type of "literacy test" Tancredo was advocating, then it's still illegal and discriminatory. And to argue that the Tancredo wasn't "talking about race" when slamming people "people who could not even spell the word 'vote,' or say it in English" is willfully obtuse, given Tancredo's past racially inflammatory rhetoric.
Earlier this week, Breitbart made a big deal about how he doesn't support Birtherism, even though his websites had wallowed the Birther swamp on numerous occasions. Will someone ask him now why his websites apparently condone Tancredo's call for the resurrection of Jim Crow in the United States?
Of course it's a civics literacy test - no one ever doubted that, so it's a strawman argument Izzy makes.
And this other disingenuous argument, that "there are far too many people in this country who don't speak a word of English and will never bother to do so" is ridiculous and specious. People who don't speak English can STILL be informed enough to vote. There's no evidence that these people vote when uninformed, and vote for one party over another when they do, and there's no evidence that these first generation immigrants are any different than other immigrants who have come here in generations past! Often the first generation doesn't speak much, if any, English. The second generation speaks both languages, and the third generation only knows a few words so they can speak to their grannies! This is the way it's always been, and will continue to be. Anyone who doesn't understand this is stupid! Anyone who describes what happens to immigrants in any other way is disingenuous. And the problem, for the past 150 years, has always been the latest immigrants - the Irish, then the Poles, then the Chinese, and now Mexicans.
Those who offer the correct answer have a sufficient understanding of our laws, the Constitution, and the rights and responsibilities each citizen of this nation has and may vote. Those who answer incorrectly, well, they're the nutcases you want to keep out of the voting booths.
19th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.(1920)
24th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of people pay poll tax or other tax.(1964)
26th Amendment - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.(1971)
In the easiest and most unmistakable terms.... don't F@#K with an American citizen's right to vote!
They don't understand it, but man, oh man, are they eager to quote it.
Whoa... talk about filth. Its not very often one can find a collective group of self-righteous wrap ourselves in the flag 'patriots' in one place.
I have created posts where I typed out parts of the Constitution to back up my assertions and many times was accused of being out of touch, an Obamabot, loony-liberal, or being nothing more than a troll... seriously!
I use the very Constitution as part of my arguments which we all must abide by and I was called a troll by those people?
WTF??
Back in the 70s, a student at my college took the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, without a heading, and presented it as a petition, asking people to sign it. I don't remember the exact number, but a majority refused.
Oops.
I have been told they do jury summons through the dmv, not voter registration. At least in California. When I was in college I registered in a different part of the state and still got jury summons in the mail at my parent's house.